JAGDISH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the petitioner in the instant revision application. It is directed against the order dated 13.12.1982, passed by the lower appellate court refusing the prayer of the petitioner for calling for the file of nine departmental proceedings as prayed for in the prayer portion of the petition.

(2.) The petitioner was a driver sepoy in B.M.P.X. He was dismissed from service on the charge of having accumulated ten black marks in his service records awarded in six different departmental proceedings conducted against him. The departmental proceeding No. 7 of 1972 was initiated against the petitioner in which the charge included the accumulation of ten black marks in six earlier proceedings. Apart from the proceeding No. 7 of 1972 against dismissal of the petitioner, the other earlier six proceedings in which the petitioner accumulated ten black marks were 11/67, 122/69, 124/69, 129/69, 133/69 and 139/69. The petitioner filed a suit (Title Suit No. 143 of 1973) for a declaration that the said proceedings were illegally drawn up and on adjudication of the same for a declaration that the order of dismissal dated 20.7.1972 was illegal. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an appeal. This appeal was numbered as Title Appeal 78 of 1978.

(3.) The petitioner filed an application in the lower appellate court with a prayer to call for the files of the nine departmental proceedings as duly numbered in the prayer portion of the petition and contended that the files were relevant for pronouncing the judgment and also in the ends of justice. On perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that no re-joinder was filed there. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in the aforesaid title appeal only contended that adducing of additional evidence, as prayed for, was not necessary for the adjudication of the matter in controversy. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the prayer on behalf of the plaintiff was at a very late stage and even the documents, sought to be called for, are not specifically mentioned and according to the learned Government Pleader it was the entire file of the proceedings which was sought to be called for and this was much too vague.